Biological Effect of Modern Fetal Ultrasound Techniques on Human Dermal Fibroblast Cells.
3-dimentional Ultrasound
4-dimentional Ultrasound
Color Doppler Ultrasound
Human Dermal Fibroblast Cells
Diagnostic Ultrasound
Journal
Journal of biomedical physics & engineering
ISSN: 2251-7200
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Phys Eng
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101589641
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
accepted:
30
12
2018
entrez:
26
7
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
26
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diagnostic ultrasound has been used to detect human disease especially fetus abnormalities in recent decades. Although the harmful effects of diagnostic ultrasound on human have not been established so far, several researchers showed it has had bioeffects in cell lines and in experimental animals. Three-dimensional (3D), four-dimensional (4D), and color Doppler sonography are new techniques which are widely used in diagnostic fetal ultrasonography. The study aims to evaluate some bioeffects of 3D, 4D, and color Doppler sonography in different exposure times according to the acoustic output which is set as ultrasound scanner's default for fetal sonography in the second trimester on human dermal fibroblast (HDF) cells. Exposure times selected consist of 10, 40, 70, and 100 seconds for 3D sonography, 10, 20, and 30 minutes for 4D sonography, and 10, 30, and 50 seconds for color Doppler. Cell viability, cell proliferation, and apoptosis induction on HDF cells were assessed using MTT assay, immunocytochemistry of Ki-67, and Terminal Transferase-mediated dUTP End-labeling (TUNEL) assay, respectively. Exposure of cells to 3D, 4D, and color Doppler modes led to decreased cell viability and increased proliferation rate of HDF. None of the diagnostic ultrasound modes induced cell apoptosis. . The results indicated that 3D, 4D, and color Doppler techniques may affect the cell viability and proliferation of HDF cells, however, have no effects on the induction of apoptosis probability. Further long-term studies with other molecular endpoints are required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic ultrasound has been used to detect human disease especially fetus abnormalities in recent decades. Although the harmful effects of diagnostic ultrasound on human have not been established so far, several researchers showed it has had bioeffects in cell lines and in experimental animals. Three-dimensional (3D), four-dimensional (4D), and color Doppler sonography are new techniques which are widely used in diagnostic fetal ultrasonography.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The study aims to evaluate some bioeffects of 3D, 4D, and color Doppler sonography in different exposure times according to the acoustic output which is set as ultrasound scanner's default for fetal sonography in the second trimester on human dermal fibroblast (HDF) cells.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Exposure times selected consist of 10, 40, 70, and 100 seconds for 3D sonography, 10, 20, and 30 minutes for 4D sonography, and 10, 30, and 50 seconds for color Doppler. Cell viability, cell proliferation, and apoptosis induction on HDF cells were assessed using MTT assay, immunocytochemistry of Ki-67, and Terminal Transferase-mediated dUTP End-labeling (TUNEL) assay, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Exposure of cells to 3D, 4D, and color Doppler modes led to decreased cell viability and increased proliferation rate of HDF. None of the diagnostic ultrasound modes induced cell apoptosis. .
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicated that 3D, 4D, and color Doppler techniques may affect the cell viability and proliferation of HDF cells, however, have no effects on the induction of apoptosis probability. Further long-term studies with other molecular endpoints are required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31341879
doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1085
pii: JBPE-9-3
pmc: PMC6613153
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
335-344Références
J Cell Physiol. 2000 Mar;182(3):311-22
pubmed: 10653597
J Biol Chem. 2004 Dec 24;279(52):54463-9
pubmed: 15485877
Lancet. 2004 Dec 4-10;364(9450):2038-44
pubmed: 15582061
Int J Dermatol. 2007 Jun;46(6):587-93
pubmed: 17550557
Methods. 2008 Mar;44(3):250-4
pubmed: 18314056
J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Apr;27(4):503-15
pubmed: 18359906
J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Apr;27(4):541-59; quiz 560-3
pubmed: 18359908
Cell Biol Int. 2008 Oct;32(10):1329-35
pubmed: 18703155
Int J Dev Neurosci. 2009 Nov;27(7):677-83
pubmed: 19664703
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010;224(2):363-73
pubmed: 20349824
Ultrason Sonochem. 2011 Jan;18(1):419-24
pubmed: 20709588
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;37(6):643-8
pubmed: 20878673
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990;16(8):809-16
pubmed: 2095011
Ochsner J. 2011 Summer;11(2):151-5
pubmed: 21734856
Arch Med Sci. 2011 Apr;7(2):224-9
pubmed: 22291760
J Ultrasound Med. 2013 Nov;32(11):1921-32
pubmed: 24154895
Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2007 Dec;83(8):256-65
pubmed: 24367150
Ultrason Sonochem. 2014 Nov;21(6):2061-8
pubmed: 24657073
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2014 Sep 15;772:20-4
pubmed: 25308543
Ultrasound Q. 2016 Sep;32(3):296-301
pubmed: 26808170
Phys Med Biol. 1989 Nov;34(11):1543-52
pubmed: 2685832
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 Jun;43(6):1085-1104
pubmed: 28342566
Acta Histochem. 2018 Apr;120(3):159-167
pubmed: 29496266
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988;14(6):499-506
pubmed: 3227573
Phys Ther. 1995 Jul;75(7):629-34
pubmed: 7604082
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1994;20(1):73-81
pubmed: 8197629